(EJIOTE Cagle andy REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ? COUTe? OF APPEALS iG) 7-8 PE MANTLA NETH (137%) DIVISION CA-G.R, CR HC No. 07777 (Criminal Case No. 13-1992 For: Serious Illegal Detention National Capital Judicial Region Regional Trial Court Branch 150 - Makati City) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - JANET LIM NAPOLES and REYNALDO LIM Y LUY ALIAS “JOJO”, Accused, JANET LIM NAPOLES, Accused-Appellant. ‘E BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE | Solicitor General JOSE C. CALIDA Assistant Solicitor General RAYMUND I. RIGODON State Solicitor LAWRENCE MARTIN A. ALBAR OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee ATTY. MARITONIE RENEE D, RESURRECCION ATTY. JESUS VICENTE B. CAPELLAN 4th Floor, FNDI Building 1785-A 8. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue Brgy. Pinaghaisahan, Quezon City Counsei for she Accused-Appellant Cour ot peas a WS ‘nai ti 4 Cxatt ities © 73th Division Normandie PizarroSUBJECT INDEX STATEMENT OF THE CASE COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS ARGUMENT The trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Serious Illegal Detention DISCUSSION A. The prosecution has established all the elements of the crime of Serious Illegal Detention. B. The prosecution has proven the coraplicity of appellant in the crime. LAW CITED Revised Penal Code, Article 267 CASES CITED People vs. Nuguid, 420 SCRA 533 [2004] CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION _ People vs. Siongco, 623 SCRA 501 [2010] Page 36 41 13 14REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA THIRTEENTH (137) DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07777 -versus- (Crim. Case No. 13-1992) JANET LIM NAPOLES and REYNALDO LIM y LUY ALIAS “JOJO”, Accused. x JANET LIM NAPOLES, Appellant. x x BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Plaintiff-Appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, respectfully states: STATEMENT OF THE CASE On August 6, 2013, appellant Janet Lim Napoles, together with her brother Reynald Lim y Luy, were charged with Serious Illegal Detention, punishable under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, in an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati City on August 13, 2013, which reads: Criminal Case No. 13-1992 That from the period of 19 December 2012 up to 22 March 2013, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who are private individuals, conspiring and confederating together and mutually aiding one another, without authority of law and by means‘ q BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 2 of intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deprive Benhur Luy y Kilapkilap of his liberty, by prohibiting him from leaving Bahay San Jose, located at No. 52 Lapu- Lapu Street, Magallanes Village, Makati City, nor contacting any of his relatives without their prior permission, thereby depriving him of his liberty during the aforesaid period of time, which lasted for more than three (3) days, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party CONTRARY TO LAW. ! On August 14, 2013, a warrant of arrest was issued against appellant but said warrant of arrest could not be implemented because she could not be found and was hiding. Arresting agents went to her known addresses and residence bift she could not be found. CA-G.R. SP No. 131311 and G.R. No. 213529 On August 16, 2013, appellant filed a Petition for Certiorari with this Honorable Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 181311, assailing the Department of Justice’s finding of probable cause against her. In a Decision dated March 26, 2014, this Honorable Court, Special Third Division, found no compelling reason to reverse or modify the finding of probable cause to indict appellant for Serious Illegal Detention. After her Motion for Reconsideration dated April 16, 2014 was denied by this Honorable Court in its Resolution dated July 8, 2014, appellant filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. Docketed as G.R. No. 213529, the Petition for Review on Certiorari, with Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction seeks to: a) review and reverse the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of petitioner’s petition for certiorari for lack of merit; b) review and nullify the Order dated August 14, 2013 and Order of Arrest dated August 14, 1RIC Decision, April 14, 2015, p. 1 an |‘4. BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 3 1H) Pp. vs. Napoles } CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 ee ie 2013 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and ¢) enjoin the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati City, Branch 150, from conducting any proceedings in Criminal Case No. 13-1992 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Janet lL. Napoles and Reynald L. Lim.” CRIM. CASE No. 13-1992 On August 27, 2013, appellant filed a Motion to Inhibit RTC, Branch 150, Makati City Presiding Judge Elmo. M. Alameda. In the evening of August 28, 2013, appellant was currendered by her counsel to then President Benigno Ss. Aquino, Ill, who turned her over to the custody of the Philippine National Police (PNP). Co-accused Reynald Lim, on the other hand, remains at large to this day? On August 29, 2013, appellant filed a Manifestation with Urgent Motion for Reconsideration (of the Commitment Order dated August 29, 2013) secking appellant's detention from Makati City Jail to Camp Bagong Diwa or Camp Crame. The trial court allowed appellant’s transfer to Fort Sto. Domingo in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. However, pursuant to an Order by the Sangdiganbayan where she is facing criminal charges, appellant was, once again, transferred to Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig City. On September 3, 2013, appellant filed an Urgent Motion for Bill of Particulars, which the trial court denied in its Order dated September 13, 2013. On September 4, 2013, appellant filed an Urgent Motion to Defer Arraignment and Suspend Proceedings, in view of the vimerous motions and petitions she filed which were still pending. On September 13, 2013, the trial court reset appellant's arraignment to September 23, 2013. Appellant filed another 1.« BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE a) Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No, 0777 oa Urgent Motion to Defer Arraignment; however, this time, the trial court denied her Motion in an Order dated September 20, 2013. On September 23, 2013, the arraignment proceeded as scheduled. Appellant, however, refused to enter a plea; hence, the trial court entered for her a plea of “NOT GUILTY”. On September 16, 2013, appellant filed an Urgent Motion for Bail which, after presentation of evidence by both parties, the trial court denied in its Order dated November 21, 2013. Oa December 5 2013, appellant moved for the reconsideration of said Order, but, in another Order dated February 12, 2014, the trial court denied her Motion, At the pre-trial conference on December 9, 2013, both parties adopted their respective evidence given during the hearing on appellant’s application for bail, with a reservation to present additional witnesses should the need arise.* Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution recalled several witnesses, namely: private complainant Benhur Luy, his mother Gertrudes Luy and sister Annabel Luy Reario, his friend Maria Flor Vistal Villanueva, NBI agent Rodante C, Berou, among others. The prosecution also presented another witness, Metrobank representative Emmanuel Domingo, after which it formally offered numerous exhibits, which the trial court admitted in its Order dated July 1,2014. On July 7, 2014, appellant filed a Motion for Leave of urt to File Demurrer to Evidence, which the trial court denied in an Order dated July 22, 2014. Thus, on August 5 and 19, 2014, the defense presented is witnesses, after adopting the testimony of its bail application witness Fr. Peter Edward Lavin. Appellant did not testify; instead, she filed a Manifestation dated December 23, | 2015 alleging, among other matters, that the prosecution lhiled to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.+ BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 5 My LY Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 Es On April 14, 2015, the trial court promulgated its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds accused Janet Lim Napoles guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Serous Illegal Detention defined and penalized under Article 267, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. She is also directed to pay Benhur Luy the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty ‘Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as moral damages. The case against Reynald “Jojo” Lim who is at-large is ordered archived SO ORDERED." Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the trial court in its Order dated June 15, 2015. Undaunted, appellant instituted the present appeal, COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS Appellee’s version of facts, “as recalled by private complainant Benhur Luy, his parents Arturo Francisco and Gertrudes, brother Arthur, and sister Annabelle”, as summarized by this Honorable Court, Special Third Division, inCA. G.R. SP No. 131311, are as follows: Benhur Luy was an employee of JLN Group of Companies owned by petitioner and her family. Petitioner was Benhur’s boss and distant relative. For the past ten (10) years, Benhur was entrusted with transacting with different government agencies in behalf of his employer. However, because of the corporation’s alleged illegal business dealings with the government, Benhur has been planning to leave the company and to start his own business. PH, pp. 14-15.| SRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE vs. Napoles (CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 On December 19, 2012, Benhur Luy was at petitioner’s office located at the 25' Floor, Discovery Center, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, when he was called to petitioner’s office. Petitioner accused him of transacting business with the Department of Agriculture in his personal capacity, effectively cutting her and her businesses out of its profits. Benhur denied the accusation against him, but petitioner did not believe him. She then confiscated his pouch, which contained identification cards, credit cards, ATM cards, bank passbooks, check booklets, cash, and his passport. She also took his cellular phones. She told him that she would investigate the matter and would not release him until the same was done. Afterward, petitioner shouted “Ikulong na yan!*. Immediately, a certain Nap Sebastian approached Benhur and brought him to the next room. Petitioner followed them and without warning, slapped Benhur at the back of his head. Reynald Lim and Ronald John Lim, petitioner’s brother and nephew, respectively, also entered the room. The three (3) then began interrogating Benhur, trying to make him admit that he was conducting his own transactions with the government. They forced Benhur to write a letter of apology to petitioner. However, when Reynald did not like the apology written by Benhur, he dictated verbatim what the latter should write. Reynald likewise said that he would kill Benhur if the latter would speak against petitioner regarding their transactions with the government. Reynald further threatened that Benhur would be jailed if he attempted to escape. In the evening of December 20, 2012, Reynald Lim brought Benhur Luy to the Bahay ni San Jose, a house located at 52 Lapu-Lapu St., Magallanes Village, Makati City. It was occupied by Monsignor Josefino Ramirez and Chinese priests. Benhur believed that the property is owned by petitioner. During Benhur’s stay thereat, he was forbidden to use cellular or landline phones. Two people, namely: John Rey and a certain La Valle, were assigned to guard him, Benhur was likewise not allowed to talk to anyone except Monsignor Ramirez. Benhur was able to talk with Monsignor Ramirez twice, and at one time, he begged the priest to request petitioner to allow him to go home to his family. Benhur also asked and begged Reynald to release him to his family, but the latter replied 6 LS{ BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 that Benhur has not yet earned petitioner’s forgiveness. Meanwhile, on December 19, 2012, Benhur Luy’s sister Anabelle Luy received a phone call from Benhur’s friend Maria Flor Villanueva. Flor related that in the morning of December 19, 2012, she went to Discovery Center as she had an appointment with Benhur, Upon arrival thereat, an unidentified male person called her using Benhur’s phone instructing her to proceed to the 25° Floor. Upon arrival at the 25% Floor, Flor saw petitioner and petitioner's nephew John Lim, along with other men. Flor noticed that Benhur’s Blackberry and iPhone were with John. Petitioner then began asking Flor questions regarding Benhur. Petitioner likewise told Flor that it may take Benhur a while to finish what he was doing and that she should just come back. On her way to the elevator, Flor heard petitioner utter, “ikuha mo nga ako ng isang room para hindi siya makatakas at iimbestigahan ko siya”. The following day, December 20, 2012, Benhur Luy’s mother Gertrudes Luy attended the mass for the death anniversary of petitioner’s mother at the Heritage Park Gertrudes was alarmed because Benhur did not show up and it was unlike of him to miss such an event. Gertrudes tried getting hold of Benhur through his cellular phones, but she never received a response. Later that afternoon, Reynald Lim called up Gertrudes to say that Benhur betrayed petitioner by engaging in projects outside the company. Because of its gravity, they were still investigating Benhur and that they would detain him, Reynald then told Gertrudes that they would allow her to see Benhur only if she turns over Benhur’s laptop. The next day, December 21, 2012, Gertrudes gave the laptop to Reynald but she was not allowed to see Benhur. On December 22, 2012, Reynald accompanied Gertrudes to Benhur's condominium unit where she was asked to pack Benhur's clothes and personal things. The first time the Luy family saw Benhur was on December 24, 2012 when Reynald Lim brought Benhur with him at the Heritage Park. The Luy family, however, was unable to talk freely because Reynald closely monitored the > luBRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE, Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 x meeting. Benhur was also not allowed to go home with his family after. The following day, December 25, 2012, Gertrudes tried to call Benhur considering that it was Christmas but to no avail. She then called petitioner to ask for forgiveness for whatever Benhur had done, but petitioner only told her that he was being held for “rehabilitation”. From December 26, 2012 to January 3, 2013, the Luy family was not able to contact Benhur. On January 3, 2013, Reynald Lim called Benhur Luy’s sister Annabelle to follow up something. Benhur’s mother Gertrudes and brother Arthur took advantage of the opportunity to ask Reynald when Benhur may be released. Reynald replied that if they would insist on Benhur’s release, he would put Benhur under the custody of a lawyer and that he would wash his hands for whatever happens to Benhur. On January 8, 2013, Benhur Luy’s mother Gertrudes called petitioner to ask where Benhur was. Petitioner replied that she was not with him and closed the phone. Thereafter, Reynald Lim called up Gertrudes, who begged for a chance to meet Benhur. Reynald then told her to go to his house at South Pacific Condominium the following day. The next day, January 9, 2013, Reynald Lim picked up Benhur Luy from the Bahay ni San Jose. Benhur was brought to the: Pacific Plaza Towers SGU where his family was waiting for them. The entire visit was made in the presence of Reynald. Benhur’s parents implored Reynald that they wanted to take’Benhur home. Reynald, however, replied that the situation was complicated and that they should not report the incident to anyone because he had connections with the government. Reynald also told Benhur not to tell his family where he was lodged. When Reynald was distracted by a phone call, however, they asked where he was being kept Benhur replied by drawing the letters “M" and “o” on the table, When Reynald stood up and walked a few meters away while talking to someone on the phone, Benhur was finally able to answer in a whisper, “nakay Monsi ako”. He likewise said, ‘Noma abla si donde y okay nusabe yo cosa pasa’. 8 wLYOn January 13, 2013, Reynald Lim called Benhur Luy’s mother Gertrudes to ask if they told anyone of the situation. Thereafter, Benhur spoke on the line instructing them to just go with whatever petitioner and Reynald want and not contradict them. Benhur warned his parents not to do anything that would jeopardize the processes being undertaken by petitioner and Reynald Lim if they wanted him to go home. Benhur further asked his parents and sister Anabelle to go to petitioner to ask for forgiveness. On February 6, 2013, petitioner sent text messages to Arthur Luy asking the Luy family to pay for the money Benhur allegedly stole from her amounting to millions of pesos. Later, the Luy family sent one text message after another to Reynald Lim requesting for an opportunity to talk with Benhur. On February 20, 2013, Reynald finally called Gertrudes and allowed Benhur to speak on the phone. Benhur cried and asked them, “Kailan niyo ba ako tutubusin, sana may tutubos na sa akin’. Thereatter, Benhur asked if they were already able to talk with petitioner. On that same day of February 20, 2013, Arthur and Gertrudes went to Bahay ni San Jose to see Benhur, but they were told by Monsignor Ramirez that Benhur was not there. Alter several attempts, the Luy family was able to get Reynald Lim to agree for them to meet Benhur Luy on February 23, 2013 at the South Garden Unit, Pacific Plaza Tower, Pasig City. Again, the visit was supervised by Reynald. Benhur's brother Arthur was able to tell Benhur, “Tama na at ako naman ang kikilos dito at kukunin kita’. Later, Benhur’ was able to surreptitiously put a letter inside his sister Annabelle’s pocket wherein he wrote that his detention was against his will. On March 8, 2013, the Luy family finally went to the NBI to ask for help in rescuing Benhur Luy. They reported that Benhur was being illegally detained by petitioner and her brother Reynald Lim since December 19, 2012 and they had difficulties contacting Benhur since December 15, 2012. They disclosed that they had made arrangements with Reynald to meet Benhur on March 22, 2013 at the Ground Floor of the South Gardens Condominium,BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs, Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 es cific Plaza Tower, Bonifacio Global City, ‘Taguig. On March 22, 2013, Reynald Lim picked up Benhur at the Bahay ni San Jose. It was the first time that Reynald Lim had no security detail with him. Reynald first brought Benhur to UCC Burgos Circle. Reynald at that time was very angry with Benhur’s mother Gertrudes because she sought the help of a lawyer in order to withdraw money from Benhur's account with the Air Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (‘AMWSLA”). Reynald also reiterated that Benhur must follow instructions and not tell his family about his state. He likewise warned Benhur not to escape. On the same day of March 22, 2013, at around 9:00 p.m., the Luy family, except for Arthur, went ahead to the condominium unit to see Reynald Lim and Benhur Luy, as agreed upon with the NBI. A few moments later, Annabelle excused herself to go to the comfort room. Once there, she called her brother Arthur to confirm that Benhur was inside the unit with them. After a few minutes, there was a knock on the door of the condominium unit. The door was opened by Reynald. Arthur was there with NBI operatives and they entered the unit to rescue Benhur and to arrest Reynald, After Benhur’s rescue, he found that his UCPB account and Metrobank Dollar Account Were closed and the deposit therein fully withdrawn. On the other hand, there was a substantial withdrawal from his Metrobank Peso Account, All withdrawals were done during the period Benhur was illegally detained. ARGUMENT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION. “Decision, March 26, 2014, pp. 2-7; citations omitted,BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 DISCUSSION 4’. The prosecution has established all the elements of the crime of Serious Illegal Detention. Appellant faults the trial court for convicting her of the crime of Serious Illegal Detention. She argues that the _ essential elements of the crime are not attendant in this case. She claims that Benhur Luy was never restrained or deprived of his liberty and that he voluntarily went through a religious ‘tetreat with Monsignor Ramirez at Balay San Jose in Magallanes Village, Makati City and while there, he was not prohibited from leaving the house. She asserts that it would have been absurd to kidnap a person and endorse him to a priest? and that a man who had been kidnapped would instinctively call for help and flee’. But, as the defense Witnesses testified, Benhur Luy even “violently resisted the alleged rescue” on March 22, 2013.8 In support of her argument, appellant points to the following circumstances during the alleged detention: 1. Benhur Luy never asked the help of Monsignor Ramirez or any of the priests in Balay San Jose:9 2. Benhur Luy’s mother and brother went to Balay San Jose on February 20, 2013 and, despite the fact that neither appellant nor co-accused Reynaldo -Lim was not (sic) there, Benhur Luy even hid from them and did not go out!o, 3. Throughout the period of his alleged detention, Benhur was able to meet his family thrice: on December 24, 2012 at the Heritage Memorial Park and on January 9, 2013 and February 23, 2013 at the Pacific Plaza Towers in Taguig City;!i ° Brief for the Appellar TIe,p. 45. 86. "Id, p. 46, id, p. 47. Ie. p. 48. u 7“BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE "| ?p. vs. Napoles. (CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 4. While in Balay San Jose, Benhur was seen “talking with someone using a cellphone”;!? 5. The letter Benhur gave his sister “did not contain any allusion, imputation or suggestion” of his alleged detention'3; on the other hand, it talks of religious activities being undertaken by him;" and 6. The testimonies of the security officers at Pacific Plaza, Taguig City and the CCTV footages of the rescue operation on March 22, 2013 would show that Benhur Luy did not “act like a kidnap victim” and “had to be forcibly pulled and dragged out by his brother and an agent of the NBI.”!5 All these circumstances, appellant contends, belie Benhur Luy’s claim that he was kidnapped or detained. In support of her argument, appellant formally offered (1) “Benhur Luy’s letters dated December 19, 2012 (Exhibit 7) and “February 21, 2013 (Exhibit 6); (2) Benhur Luy’s Notebook containing his daily reflections from December 22 to February 8, 2013 (Exhibit 8); (3) April 15, 2013 Affidavit of Fr. Peter Edward Lavin (Exhibit 11); (4) April 15, 2013 Sinumpaang Salaysay of Fernando M. Masayon (Exhibit 12); (5) April 10, 2013 Sinumpaang Salaysay of Feliciano Alcantara (Exhibit 13); (6) April 15, 2013 Affidavit of Madylon Habana April 15, 2013 (Exhibit 14); (7) April 15, 2013 Sinumpaang Salaysay of Peter John Castillo (Exhibit 16); (8) April 10, 2013 Joint ‘Affidavit executed by Monsignor Josefino Ramirez and five (5) other priests from China; and (9) certain object evidence. 16 Appellants’ argument is bereft of merit. The crime of Serious Illegal Detention is defined in the "Revised Penal Code as follows: ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death; ia. Bid, p. 49. _ Accused’s Formal Offer of Exhibits, December 16, 2014. 12 |BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles (CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 a 1. lasted more than three days. 2. If the kidnapping or detention shall have If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inilicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made. 4, If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer. xXx XXX XXX, By jurisprudence, the elements of Serious Illegal Detention are: a the offender is a private individual; he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his libert the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b} it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.” In this case, all these elements have been sufficiently proven by the prosecution. First, there is no denying that appellant is a private|) REF FOR THE APPELLEE sal’ }p.vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No, 07777 + Second, Benhur Luy was actually deprived of his liberty by appellant and co-accused Reynald Lim At the outset, it must be stressed that the deprivation required by Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code means not only the imprisonment of a person, but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time.'* Here, the prosecution was able to prove that Benhur Luy was deprived of his liberty from December 19, 2012 to March 22, 2013. From December 19, 2012 to December 20, 2012, Benhur Luy was detained against his will at the Discovery Suites and from December 20, 2012 to his rescue on March 22, 2013, he was forced to stay at Balay San Jose, a property owned by appellant. At Balay San Jose, Benhur Luy was deprived of his liberty until March 22, 2013. Immediately after appellant learned of Benhur Luy’s own business dealings during their meeting at her office in Discovery Suites on December 19, 2012, she cursed Benhur luy and repeatedly shouted “Ikulong na yan!” Thereafter, appellant’s security officer, Paquito Dimso, guarded Benhur Luy and told him not to leave the room per instruction of appellant. Upon the arrival of Nap Sibayan, another security oflicer of appellant, and accused Reynald Lim, Benhur Luy was transferred to the next room, Unit 2501, where he was guarded by Nap Sibayan and was told by accused Reynald Lim not to leave the room, once again, upon instructions of appellant. Soon after, appellant reappeared and hit him behind the left ear and said “hayop ka, hindi ka na makakalabas’. Accused Reynald Lim re-entered the room and hit Benhur Luy behind the left ear too. He then uttered “hayop ka, traydor ka. Alam mo Benhur, ako convicted criminal na ako, wala ng saysay ang buhay ko, papatayin kita para lang sa ate ko’. Before leaving, accused Reynald Lim instructed Nap Sibayan “bantayan mo si Benhur, wag mong palabasin sabi ni ate.” Appellant’s lawyer, Atty. Alfredo Villamor, entered the room and ordered Benhur to write all his transactions on a piece of paper. Accused Reynald Lim also asked him to divulge all his bank accounts. Nap Sibayan continued to stand guard "by the door. At about 9:00 0’ clock in the evening, Benhur was escorted by appellant’s security officers Nap Sibayan and John People vs ngCo, 623 SCRA 501 [2010},Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 Rey Mijares to another room in the same building. Thereat, accused Reynald Lim warned him not to escape and called the receptionist to cut off all outgoing calls. Guards were then posted outside the room. The following morning, accused Reynald Lim arrived and placed on the table a photograph of Benhur Luy’s mother Gertrudes, who works as a nanny to appellant’s children.! Before leaving, accused Reynald Lim once again threatened Benhur Luy and uttered “may paglalagyan ka kung may gagawin ka, alam mo di ba ‘yung picture?’, in obvious reference to his mother. He stayed in Discovery Suites until 8:00 0’ clock in the evening when accused Reynald Lim, accompanied by his security men, brought him to Balay San Jose at No. 52 Lapu Lapu Street, Magallanes Village, Makati City.2° It must be noted that, during this time, (1) Benhur Luy’s cellphones and other personal things were confiscated by appellant, (2) he was disallowed contact with family and friends or visitors, such as Maria Flor Villanueva, and (3) he was threatened with harm upon himself and his family if he tried to escape. Verily, while at Balay San Jose from December 20, 2012 'o March 22, 2013, Benhur Lim was deprived of liberty contrary to appellant’s assertion. For one, Benhur Luy did not voluntarily seek to go on a retreat, His stay at Balay San Jose, which is owned by appellant, was planned and forced upon him by appellant and co-accused Reynald Lim. Benhur Luy did not even know where he was being brought that night of December 20, 2013. As Benhur Lim testified: Q: What else did you hear from Jojo while he was talking with somebody on the phone? Tt almost 9:00 at that time, I heard him asked if he was sleeping and I heard him tell this person he was talking to tell Monsi that we are near in the area. Q: And after that what happened Mr. Witness? STS.N., October 25, 2013 (morning hearing), pp. 26-90. ®TS.N., October 25, 2013 (morning hearing), pp. 94-100, BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 15 ‘nyBRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles (CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 Q PO zo Q: Q RO We arrived at No. 52, Lapu-Lapu St, Magallanes Village, Makati City. XXX XxX XXX You mentioned that it was only you and Jojo Lim went inside and went to the dining table, what happened after you went to the dining area? While we were waiting for Monsi to arrive, | was instructed by Jojo not to tell anything. And what else did he tell you, if any? He told me that he is the only person who is going to talk. He told me that I know the situation for now. And told that, “there is a place for you, isn’t it that you love your family?” XXX XxX XxX Mr. witness who owns this house at the address, No. 52 Lapu-Lapu St., Magallanes Village, Makati City where you and Jojo went? Kay Janet Napoles po. XXX XxX XXX And what happened, Mr, witness? Jojo started talking to Monsi And what did Jojo tell Monsi at that time? Sabi nya, “Mons, dito na muna si Benhur’. Continue, what else did he tell you? Sabi ni ate, dito na muna,si Benhur, dito muna namin itatago, sabi niyang ganon. XXX XXX XXX After that, what else did Jojo tell Monsignor Ramirez? He even asked, “Jo, does Ben’s family know about this?” Who was saying this, Mr. witness? It was Monsignor who told Jojo, “does the family of Benhur know about this? What about the family? What did Jojo tell Monsignor Ramirez about this inquiry that he made to Jojo?BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE, Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 Q He told Monsi that they will be the one to arrange everything. Jenny and himself will be arranging things. And after that, what else did Jojo tell Monsignor? He told Monsignor that he cannot talk to anyone, it is only you whom he can talk to What other instructions if any Mr. witness, did Mr. Jojo Lim tell Monsignor Ramirez? He even said that Jenny sent guard whose only purpose and duty is to look after or watch over Benhur. What did Monsignor Ramirez tell Jojo about these instructions given to him by Jojo? He asked, “where the guard is” and he said, “Monsignor, it is stationed outside.” How about you, Mr. witness, what did you do at that time while Monsignor Ramirez and Mr. Jojo Lim were talking and discussing about your stay at this house? Iwas quiet, sir, Why did you not say anything to Monsignor Ramirez? Isn’t it that before Monsi arrived, he instructed me not to talk or tell story to Mon: After this, Mr. witness, can you tell this Honorable Court what happened? Monsi asked, “what about his payables, his credit cards?” : And what was the answer of Mr. Jojo Lim, Mr. witness? He told that he and ate will fix everything. When you say ate, who are you referring to? Si Janet Lim Napoles po. After he told Monsignor that he and ate will take care of your payables, what happened? Monsi asked, how long will be Ben staying here? waiBRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 Q: And what did Jojo tell Monsignor Ramirez about this? A: Maybe one (1) month, we will look on the situation, me and ate Jenny What did Monsignor tell Jojo about this? Jojo said that he will keep on looking after, he would be coming over, visit and check on me on a regular basis. RO And what happened? We stood up sir, we bid goodbye. We hug each other, me and Kuya jojo hecause he will be leaving me in Magallanes. I pleaded Kuya Jojo to help me. BO Q: What help are you pleading from Mr. Jojo Lim? A: That he talk to ate and set me free.2! For another, Benhur Luy’s movements at Balay San Jose were being closely monitored. Benhur Luy testified that while at Balay San Jose, he was instructed not to talk with anyone, and that there were guards or security personnel, Johnray Mijares and a certain Lavalle, watching him all the time.2? His Movements were being recorded on a logbook.%® Moreover, thereat, accused Reynald Lim continued to threaten him, tlling him that appellant has plenty of connections, saying ‘enny, hawak nya ang Gobyerno, hawak namin ang Gobyerno”, referring to appellant.2# Accused Reynald Lim also tld him “not to make attempts, if I just follow his instruction md Jenny, there will be no problem”.25 He was likewise told mt to divulge to his family where he was staying. furthermore, his cellphones and laptop were taken from him ad never returned. They were all in the possession of accused Xynald Lim. Ditto with his notebook and journal while he was thsre at Balay San Jose. All these circumstances indicate that eahur Luy was truly deprived of his liberty while at Balay ‘Sin Jose. _The circumstances appellant pointed to are not beyond sible explanation. In fact, more than establishing the KX, October 25, 2013 (morning hearing), pp. 99-114; emphasis supplied. , October 25, 2013 (afternoon hearing), pp. 36-37 ;October 25, 2013 (afternoon hearing), p. 43. October 25, 2013 (afternoon hearing), p. 10. October 25, 2013 (afternoon hearing), p. 23.Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 x contrary position, they only reinforce the fact that Benhur Luy had been deprived of his liberty while at Balay San Jose. One, contrary to appellant’s contention, Benhur Luy did tak to Monsignor Ramirez twice and ask for his help. On January 9, 2016, Benhur Luy confessed to Monsignor Ramirez the nature of his work with appellant, After this confession, Monsignor Ramirez became worried and even told him that “Ben baka ipaligpit ka.” Benhur Luy then begged him to talk to appellant to set him free.2 Again, on February 10, 2016, Benhur Luy talked to Monsignor Ramirez, who told him that Jenny was afraid of him because he knows a lot of the transactions. Benhur Luy then cried and pleaded for help.2” ‘Two, contrary to appellant’s contention, Benhur Luy did not intentionally hide from his mother and brother when they went to Balay San Jose on February 20, 2013. He was ordered by the security guard, Johnray Mijares, to hide not, knowing that his mother and brother were there. In fact, he was only told of their visit belatedly when they had already left. As Benhur Luy testified: Q: When did you learn that your mother went to that place, to that house on that day? A: About 2:30 0’ clock because Leslie Sayson came into the chapel. Q: Who is Leslie? A: She is the wife of the houseboy, Sir, Q: What did she tell you when she entered the room? A: She was holding a broom (walis) and she was (sic) with her a piece of paper with the writing nakasulat dun “Magtago ka, wag ka lalabas.” Q: From whom did this letter come from? A: From the Security Guard Johnray Mijares Q: What did you do after this note was handed to you by Leslie? ATSN., October 25, HTSN., October 2: 013 (afternoon hearing), pp. 37-39. 2013 {afternoon hearing), pp. 84-88, | Ay BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 19 |BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 = Q AD EO Q zo Leslie told me there is a guest. And what did you do, Mr. witness? Thid, sir. How did you come to know that your mother came to that house at about 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon on February 20? At about 5:00 o? clock in the afternoon, Leslie told me Kuya, Nanay mo pala yun sabi nya yun at saka Kuya mo pala yun, (He was asking me if it was your Mom and it was your Kuya) Kuya mo pala yun and I told her pumunta pala sila dito (They came here why did you not tell me} What did Leslie tell you? Johnray Mijares told her. What did you do after you were informed about this? She told me if she had known it was my mom, I could have accompanied her to me because I even accompanied her to the CR. After Leslie told you about this, what happened? She told me that my Mom is young and at that juncture we were seen by Johnray and he came in and asked me what we were talking about. What did you tell Johnray about the things you were talking? 1 asked him, to Johnray that my mom and brother came here “Kuya Johnray pumunta pala ang Nanay ko dito at saka my brother?” ; What did Johnray tell you? Johnray said that if I will be given the opportunity to speak to my mother and brother. What else did Johnray tell you? He told me that he denied that 1 was there and I cannot make an eye to eye contact to my Mom and my brother because they were so worried. What did Johnray tell you? He said that I should ask sorry for my Mom and brother for them.! | gRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE ar/| 0 Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 - And then, what did you tell Johnray? I told him why did you not tell me that my Mom and brother were there and since we were body, body. Q At Q: What time Jojo came to that house and in raged, what did you tell Jojo other than asking if you meet your mother? XxX XxX Xxx A: I replied I did not see my mother and brother | came to know only from Kuya Johnny. Q: And what did Jojo do at that time when you explained to him that you did not see your brother and mother and you came to know only from Kuya Johnray? s00r HX sone A: Jojo told me that they learned already that you were in Magallanes and I will transfer you to Laguna. Q: And what did you do when you heard Jojo telling you that you will be transferred to Laguna? A: [knelt before Jojo and I was pleading to him.28 Three, indeed, throughout the period of his alleged detention, Benhur was able to meet his family only thrice: on December 24, 2012 at the Heritage Memorial Park and on January 9, 2013 and February 23, 2013 at the Pacific Plaza Towers in Taguig City. What is telling is that Benhur Luy did not see his family on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. Also, even more telling is that for all of those meetings, the arrangement was coursed through accused Reynald Lim, who decided where and what time they would meet. This is not to even say that Benhur Luy was free in all of those occasions. Accused Reynald Lim was always present in _ those occasions and there were security guards watching over him all the time. In fact, in order to divulge where he was _®18.N., October 25, 2013 {afternoon hearing), pp. 90-95,BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 224 .} Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 = staying, Benhur Luy had to scribble the letters “M? and “0” to signify that he was being kept at Monsignor Ramirez’s place in Magallanes Village. Four, while in Balay San Jose, Benhur Luy was deprived of his cellphone so he could not possibly be talking to anyone, as mistakenly thought by another priest Five, that the February 21, 2013 letter Benhur gave his sister “did not contain any allusion, imputation or suggestion” of his alleged detention” was amply explained by Benhur Luy. In that letter, Benhur Luy did not mention that he was being detained because he was merely experimenting to sce if he could communicate with his family without appellant or accused Reynald Lim knowing and catching him. As Benhur luy testified: Q: In this letter, it does not say that you want to be rescued? A: If_Jojo will catch me, Iam just experimenting if I will succeed, Q So, this letter what you are saying is an experiment? A: Yes sir the first letter that I wrote. Q: Even if it is an experiment, according to you, all what is written there are all the truth? Yes, sir. Q: And your intention was if that experiment would succeed, you witl write again another letter? A Yes, sir.29 Benhur Luy, however, mentioned that if he had | succeeded in getting his message across, he would definitely “write another letter to tell his family where he was being detained, Last, relative to appellant’s contention that the conduct ofBenhur Luy during the rescue operation was inconsistent,3° TSN, October 29, 201 P. 119; underscoring supplied. *Paiition, pp. 37-38BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 23 4 ui) Pp. vs. Napoles. “GR CR HC No. 07777 Benhur Luy explained that he was very afraid during the time he was rescued, thus, he did not act logical. In fact, he was trembling and incapacitated by fear because he thought the agents who had guns were there, instead, to liquidate him. As Benhur Luy testified: Q: What did you tell this person when he was mentioning your name Benhur Luy Benhur Luy? A: 1 told them “It is me” [am Benhur but | am so afraid because a lot of people came in, Why are you afraid at that time? Because I do not know who these people are who came in. zo Q: What did you do at that time? A: Since this person who approached me I saw that he has a sidearm and I am so afraid and I didn’t know who he was and I thought they are the persons who were sent to liquidate me. XXX XXX XXX Q: And what did your mother tell you after you said that to your mom? A: My mother said that these people are their companions. peed XxX ae Q: Where was Jojo at that time when you heard somebody was telling him this? A: I did not know where Jojo was because at that time my mother and brother were facing me and | was trembling with fear at that time.3! This explains his reaction during the time of the rescue March 22, 2013. Indeed, Benhur Luy mistakenly thought that the armed men were sent by the Senators and Mayors whom he was told by accused Reynald Lim were out to liquidate him. So, he initially resisted the NBI agents. pp. 41-42; underscoring supplied ISN, October 29, 201BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 24 my) Po. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No, 07777 x Truly, Benhur Luy was incapacitated by fear. Throughout his detention, he was repeatedly threatened with bodily harm upon him and/or his family, so much so that he blindly believed and followed what he was told by appellant and accused Reynald Lim. Finally, as to the third and fourth elements of the crime, the act of depriving Benhur Luy of his liberty is illegal. Both appellant and accused Reynald Lim had no authority and/or justifiable reason to deprive Benhur Luy of his liberty. And, as already narrated above, Benhur Luy was deprived of his liberty for more than three (3) days. In fact, his detention lasted for a little over three (3) months starting on December 19, 2012 and ending on March 22, 2013, when he was rescued by the NBI agents. Indeed, the illegal detention of Benhur Luy had been sufficiently established. As the trial court ruled: In this case, the prosecution was able to establish that on December 19, 2012, accused Janet ordered the detention of Benhur when she discovered the existence of separate business transactions entered into by Benhur involving the PDAF of certain legislators which resulted in the decline of her income. Her expletives on Benhur and order to Jojo and her security personnel to detain him were clear or unambiguous. The expletives and order to detain were, “putang-ina mo Benhur, walanghiya ka, ikaw pa ang kamag. anak ko, ikaw pa ang nagtra-traydor sa akin, kaya pala nababawasan ang PDAF ko, may hidden transaction ka sa mga Senador at sa mga Chiefs of Staff nila”, “ikulong na ‘yan, ikulong na ‘yan” and repeated her order while leaving her office *ikulong na ‘yan, ikulong na ‘yan, putang-ina niyan, ikulong na ‘yan’, “putang-ina ka, pati si Ungab kinuha mo”, “hayop ka, hindi ka na makakalabas’. Taking a cue from the command of Janet, the security personnel of Janet led Benhur to a room where he was kept while being interrogated. Her co-accused Jojo who blindly followed her command also berated Benhur, uttering “hayop ka, traydor ka, alam mo Benhur, ako convicted criminal na ako, walang saysay ang buhay ko, papatayin kita para lang sa ate ko, dlam mo Benhur pagkatapos ng ginawa ng pamilya namin sa ‘yo, alam mo ikaw ang nakakaalam lahat lahat ng transaction ni Jenny, lahat ng sikreto ni Jenny, lahat ng mga transaction ng opisina, lahat ng mga bank accounts niya, ikaw ang nakakaalam, ikaw ang pinagkakatiwalaan tapos iyan ang iginanti mo sa ate ko”. Benhur was detained the Whole day in the office of JLN at the Discovery Suites inBRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No, 07777 Pasig before he was led to a hotel room in the same building where he spent the whole night under guard and threatened with bodily harm if he attempts to escape. The following day, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Bahay ni San Jose in Magallanes Village, Makati City where he was detained until March 22, 2013. He was rescued in the evening of March 22, 2013 by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation at the South Garden Unit owned by accused Jojo located at the Pacific Plaza Towers Condominium, Bonifacio Global, Taguig City. In this case, Benhur positively identified accused Janet and Jojo and narrated their overt acts in the commission of the crime of Serious Ilegal Detention against him, to wit: TSN-October 25, 2013, pp. 32 to 47. “PROS. SALAZAR: Q. What happened alter Ms. Napoles called these three (3) officers, Mia, Arlene and Marina? A. Ms. Napoles said, “Arlene, [ thought you were the one who is communicating with Maya” and she was trembling with anger. What else? ‘Tapos ang sabi niya, “yun pala si Benhur pala ang traydor, siya ang ahas.” Po Q. Where were you at the time when Ms. Napoles was telling the three (3), Arlene, Mia and Marina about this? A. Doon na po ako sa harap niya po, sa table. Q. What happened after that, Mr. Witness? A. She asked Bong de Asis, where he is and she asked that this Bong will be brought to her. Q. Who is this Bong in relation to your office, Mr. Witness? A. Siya po ‘yung security at driver ni Ms. Janet Napoles at saka driver siya ng office and at the same time, President po siya ng foundation. Q. And what happened Mr. Witness after Bong was called by Ms. Napoles?| BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 x Po PO a. ° 2x She instructed Bong to call the number of Flor and asked Bong to bring this Flor in the office. What did Bong do? Bong took my cellphone, he left. Ms. Napoles stood up and shouted, “ikulong na ‘yan, ikulong na ‘yan.” While she was leaving the office and she was dictating to the people ‘ikulong na ‘yan, ikulong na ‘yan, putang-ina niyan, ikulong na ‘yan’. What did you do at the time Mr. Witness when Ms. Napoles was shouting these words, “ikulong na ‘yan, ikulong na ‘yan’. 1 was doing nothing but I was in extreme fear. Why were you afraid, Mr. Witness? Kasi alam ko ‘yung kakayahan na pwedeng gawin ni Ms. Janet Napoles. How many times did Ms, Napoles shouted, ikculong na ‘yan, ikulong na ‘yan? inside that room? ‘Two (2) times sir when she was about to stand up from the table and when she was about to leave the office, she instructed these people How about outside Mr. Witness, how many times did you hear madam Napoles shouted “ikulong na ‘yan”? I heard her shouted twice, she was cursing. Mr. Witness, what is the relation of this Janet Lim Napoles that you are telling us who shouted, “ikulong na ‘yan, ikulong na ‘yan”, twice inside that room and twice outside, to the Janet Lim Napoles, the accused in this case? One and the same person, sir. Who were present at that time inside that room when Ms. Napoles shouted “ikulong na ‘yan, ikulong na ‘yan”? Merlina Sufas, Evelyn de Leon, John Lim, Arlene Baltazar, Marina Sula, Mia Alvarez, Engr. Bong at meron isang Chief Political olficer ng isang Senador nandoon sa labas. XXX MIBRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 a Po Q > © PO PO ° Mr. Witness, after Janet Lim Napoles left the room, what happened? Everybody stood up, when Janet left, John came after. How about the others? All of them had left and I was the only one left in the room, sir. And what did you do when you were left behind in that room? When 1 was about to leave that room, there is this man named Paquito Dimso who was there. What happened when you went out of the room? He told me not to leave, 1 was instructed by madam not to let you leave And what did you do when you were told by Mr. Dimso not to go out because you are not allowed? I told him to wait for a while because I have to check something on my table. XXX And what happened after you checked these items that you have just mentioned, Mr. Witness? At saka po ‘yung wallet ko po na may mga credit cards at saka pera, nandoon din po. When | checked on my items, all of a sudden Nap Sibayan and Reynald Lim suddenly arrived, sir. i Who is this Nap Sibayan, Mr. Witness? Security officer po ni Ms. Janet Lim Napoles at saka ng pamilya po. Who is this Reynald “Jojo” Lim? He is the brother of Janet Lim Napoles. And how is he related to the person one of the accused in this case? One and the same person. What if any did Nap Sibayan and Reynald “Jojo” Lim do at that time when they arrived at your table or your office? a# “HVBRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 x Po Po xxx Q Q Mr. Nap Sibayan told me, “sir, we will move to the next room” and Jojo was right at his back. What else did Nap Sibayan told you? Nagsalita si Jojo ng Chabakano, ang sabi niya, Ben, abla si ate kambia kita na unlaw, deja se di tuyo mga gamit”. What dialect was that Mr. Witness? Chabakano. Sabi niya po kasi, “Ben, kambia na kita unlaw” so ‘we will change our room, other side” parang ganon. ‘Abla si ate”, “sabi ni ate”, “deja se di tuyo todo mga gamit”, “iwanan mo lahat ng mga gamit mo.” Parang ganon. What happened after Jojo told you of this in Chabakano? I was escorted by Jojo Lim, Nap Sibayan and Andres Atan, XXX What happened after you were brought to the other unit, Mr. Witness? I was brought by these three (3) men to unit 2501. XXX What happened Mr. Witness after you were brought to that unit at 2501? 1 was detained at the second room of Lester Gastala. xxx What happened after you were brought to that room, Mr. Witne: I was asked by Jojo to sit on one of the chairs there, | was instructed just to stay there and not to go out. And where did Jojo go after that? He instructed Nap Sibayan to watch over me and not to let me leave upon the instruction of his ate Janet. When you say ate, who are you referring to Mr. Witness? Ms, Janet Lim Napoles. 20}BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE, Po. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 x ed A. Q. Q cae = ee oer ©) © XX Where was Nap Sibayan positioned at that time when Mr. Reynald Lim left the room? He was stationed at the door of the office where I was detained. And what happened after that? After thirty (30) minutes, Ms. Janet Napoles entered the room. Who was with Ms. Janet Napoles at that time when she entered the room? Siya lang po. And what did she do at that time, Mr. Witness? She hit me behind my left ear. What did you feel at that time Mr. Witness when you were hit by Ms. Napoles? T got hurt. What did Ms. Napoles say, if any, at that time when she hit you? Sabi niya po ‘putang-ina ka, pati si Ungab kinuha mo”, sabi niyang ganon. Who is this Ungab that you are referring to, Mr. Witness? Siya po ‘yung Congressman ng 3rd District ng Davao City. And what did you tell Ms, Napoles, Mr. Witness? I told her, Ungab is one of those whom you assigned from D.A. that J will conduct follow-up ma’am. What, if any, happened after you told her about this? Sabi niya, ‘hayop ka, hindi ka na makakalabas”, sabi niyang ganon. And who is this person again who told you, “hayop ka, hindi ka na makakalabas”? Si Janet Lim Napotes. xxx 2BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07: x 77 Q. Now Mr. Witness, after Ms. Janet Lim Napoles told you about this, what happened after that? A. She instructed Nap not to let Benhur go otherwise, he will be responsible for that. Q. Where was Nap at that time when Ms. Napoles instructed him not to let you leave? A. He is stationed at the door, sir. XXX XK Q. What happened when Jojo entered the room at that time Mr. Witness? A. Jojo Lim also hit me, sir. XXX XXX Q. What did you feel at that time Mr. Witness when you were hit by Mr. Jojo Lim? A. Painful, sir. Q. What did you do at that time after you were hit by Mr. Lim? A Tapos sabi ko sa kanya, “Bakit Kuya Jo?” Q. And what did Mr time? Sabi niya, “hayop ka, traydor ka®, sabi niyang ganon. Tapos ang sabi niya, “Alam mo Benhur, ako convicted criminal na ako, wala ng saysay ang buhay ko, papatayin kita para lang sa ate ko”. Lim say or do at that The crime of Serious Illegal Detention was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecytion. Accused Janet is a private individual. Janet ordered the detention of Benhur which is illegal on suspicion that he was defrauding her of her collections from the allocated PDAF of certain legislators. Without hesitation and getting orders from Janet, Jojo held Benhur captive against his will which lasted for three (3) months. The detention of Benhur deprived him of his liberty. It is settled that the crime of Serious Illegal Detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also in detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty (People vs. Domasian, GR No. 953322, March 1, 1993, 219 SCRA 245, 253). For there to be kidnapping, it is cnough that the victim is restrained from going home (People vs. Acbangin, 392 Phils. 232, 240; 337 SCRA 454, 461 (2000). Its essence is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. Although, ffBRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 Benhur was not placed in a solitary confinement, and even allowed to leave the house on three (3) occasions, he was nevertheless restrained and deprived of his liberty because everytime he left the house, he was always accompanied by Jojo and his security personnel. Likewise, the fact that Benhur was also allowed to read verses in the Bible, attend mass, jot down notes in his notebook, writing letters, talking to his family through cell phones provided by Jojo, exchanging greetings from Father Lavin, _ these circumstances do not in any way negate the presence of actual deprivation of Behur's liberty. Benhur was under constant threat which Jojo instilled in his mind. There were relentless and unending surveillance to prevent him from escaping. Explaining his failure to mention in his letter which he slipped into the pocket of his sister Annabel about his detention, Benhur testified as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. VILLAMOR: Q. In this letter, it does not say that you want to be rescued? If Jojo catch me, I will not know what will happen to me. | am just experimenting it if Iwill succeed Q. So this letter, what are you saying is an experiment? A. Yes sir the first letter that I wrote. Q. Even if it is an experiment, according to you the contents are true and correct, all what is written there are all the truth? A. Yes, sir. Q. And your intention was if that experiment would succeed you will write again another letter? A. Yes sir. Q. And what will you say in that letter Mr, Witness? That I am in Magallanes and I need to be rescued that what they were doing is against. my will and that all my movements are being recorded and 1 cannot go home. Q. This letter according to you was just an experiment so in order for you to succeed, you will now write again and saying everything that you are undergoing? 31 WDBRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 es Explaining his initial resistance during his rescue conducted by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation on March 22, 2013 at the South Garden Unit, Benhur testified that when he was pulled-out by Agent Berou, he mistook them as friends of Janet who were sent to harm him. Moments later, upon realizing that th Yes, sir, You will say that you wanted to be rescued? Yes, sir. And you will say that you were in Magallanes because you do not want to stay in Magallanes for a single day? Yes, sir. And saying that you were being threatened by Jojo? And Madam, sir, the NBI, he immediately went with them. Thus: ‘TSN-October 29, 2013, pp. 40-43. Q. Po PO What happened after Kuya Jojo opened the door? There was a commotion. What was the commotion all about? Because there is this man who approached me, | can no longer recall and he was mentioning my name, Benhur Luy, Benhur Luy. What did you tell this person when he was mentioning your name, Benhur Luy, Benhur Luy? . told him, “it is me” 1 am Benhur but | am so afraid because a lot of people came in. Why are you afraid at that time? Because [ do not know who these people are who came in? What did you do at that time? Since this person who approached me I saw that he has a side arm and I am so afraid and | did not know who he was and I thought they are the persons who were sent to liquidate me, So what happened during that time? y were agents of a )| BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE, Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No, 07777 x a Q Q xx Q. IL told, “Mang, ano ba ito, Mang ano ba ito wala akong ginagawang masama Kuya Jojo”, And what did your mother tell you after you said that your Mom? My mother said that these people are their companions. What else? I said, “Mang sandali tang, | was trembling while seated in the couch and then I heard ikaw Jojo ay inaaresto ka sa salang illegal detention. HEX And after you heard this person who was placing Jojo under arrest, detention what happened? It suddenly occurred to me what Atty. Villamor said that “Lagot tayo Jojo we might be charged with Illegal Detention: so I stood up and went with them. Where did you go Mr. Witness? We went to the NBI and mother, we went outside. How did you know they were NBI operatives? I was told by my mother when we were about to leave the place that these people who were their companions were NBI. Where were you when you went with the NBI? Aside from my mother, mly father, my sister and my brother, there were NBI men who were surrounding me. Do you know Mr. Witness why they were surrounding you at that time? Since I was already rescued by my family, I know there is possibility of hurting me because I know a lot about Madam. Xxx What other things were made to you? When I came back to STF, I was asked by Senior Agent why I resist. 33 wy |BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE tp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 ® Q. Who is the Senior Agent who asked you about this? A. Mr. Dante Berou who asked me, sir. Q. What did you tell to this Senior NBI Agent? A. I told him 1 resisted because I thought they were the People of Madam, the Mayors and Senators who were hunting me to liquidate. After that what happened? According to Sr. Agent Berou ten (10) minutes after we left, three (3) women came in, one is tall and she was cursing, Po Q. What did you tell Agent Berou on the description that he gave you of the persons who arrived ten minutes after? A. Ttold him it was Madam Janet Napoles. Q, How about the others Mr. Witness as they were described by Agent Berou, were you able to find out their identities? A. I told him Jo Christine Napoles, James Christopher Napoles and the husband Jaime Garcia Napoles, ‘The court viewed the footages from the USB without audio (Exhibit “15") that were copies from the hard drive based DBR connected to the CCTV system of Pacific Plaza Tower Condominium and is fully convinced that the footages do not depict what Fernando Masayon, Feliciano Alcantara, Madelon Habana and Peter John Castillo wanted to convey to the court specifically on the alleged resistance of Benhur when rescued by the NBI agents. The video footages seem to show the following, to wit: Benhur and accused Jojo coming out from an elevator leading to a stairway; several persons Standing in front of the reception area or lobby of the Pacific Plaza Towers Condominium; people coming out from the building towards the drop-off area; people in'a huddle in the drop-off area who were later identified as Benhur, members of his. family and NBI agents; few minutes later, a black SUV. arrived where they boarded and immediately left The passive behavior of Benhur during the three (3) months that he was detained is not difficult to comprehend considering the character and treatment given to him by Janet and Jojo. The behavior of Janet and Jojo had established their moral ascendance and at the same time ‘lominance over Benhur and the members of his family such that none would dare stand up against them much less Benhur who from his demeanor appeared to be frightened, a IN)BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE. Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No, 07777 = While testifying, his voice cracked and his eyes welled with tears, The testimony of Benhur of what occurred on December 19, 2012 at the Discovery Suites was corroborated by Flor Villanueva, Marina Sula, Mary Arlene Baltazar and Merlina Pablo Suenas. The assertions of defense witnesses Fernando Masayon, Feliciano Alcantara, Madylon Habana, Peter John Castillo, Abelardo Hernale Jr. and Father Peter Edward Lavin that Benhur’s demeanor when he stayed in Bahay ni San Jose in Magallanes, Makati was not that of a victim but one who voluntarily agreed to stay in the house and his resistance when he was being rescued by the NBI agents are incredulous and cannot prevail over the positive assertions of Benhur and the other prosecution witnesses. Further, the testimony of Benhur is not only credible but cohesive as well. As to the use of intimidation, it is abundantly clear from Benhur’s testimony that the accused indeed threatened and intimidated him. There is no showing that Benhur simply made up the details of his testimony or that he was coached. Furthermore, the testimonies of Flor Villanueva, Marina Sula, Mary Arlene Baltazar and Merlina Pablo Suenas supplied what transpired in the office of accused Janet on December 19, 2012 while the testimony of NBI Rodante Berou supplied what transpired during the rescue of Benhur on March 22, 2013. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertion of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the witnesses of the accused, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and entitled to greater evidentiary ‘weight (People vs. Monteron, 378 SCRA 340 (2002).22 B, The prosecution has proven the complicity of appellant in the crime. Appellant argues that there is no direct evidence to prove ‘yond reasonable doubt her complicity in the alleged detention of Benhur Luy. She claims that she never detained Benhur Luy and that she never went to Balay San Jose during the alleged period of detention. In fact, as Benhur Luy himself. admitted, he last saw her on December 19, 2012 at the “RIG Decision, pp. 17-24; emphasis supplied. “HYDiscovery Suites, when and where she was quoted, as saying, in a fit of anger, “ikulong na yan, ikulong na yan ang putang inang iyan.” She contends that when she uttered the phrase “Tkulong na yan!”, she did not order that Benhur Luy be kidnapped or detained; she only meant that she wanted Benhur Luy jailed for betraying her trust and stealing her money. At bottom, she asserts that no admissible evidence was presented to prove her complicity in the alleged crime as she insists that she had no participation in Benhur Luy’s detention. Appellant’s argument is unavailing. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly and sufficiently established that appellant had ordered the detention of Benhur Luy and that she had knowledge of what accused Reynald Lim, her brother, was doing, since he was, after all, only following her instructions. To be sure, appellant ordered the detention of Benhur luy when she learned that he was conducting his own business dealings. Her security personnel, together with her brother, co-accused Reynald Lim, immediately stood watch over Benhur Luy, upon her instructions, while he was being interrogated at Discovery Suites on December 19, 2012 to December 20, 2012. To recall, immediately after appellant learned of Benhur luy’s own business dealings during their meeting at her office in Discovery Suites on December 19, 2012, she cursed Benhur luy and repeatedly shouted “Ikulong na yan!”. Thereafter, appellant’s security officer, Paquito Dimso, guarded Benhur luy and told him not to leave the room per instruction of appellant. Upon the arrival of Nap Sibayan, another security dficer of appellant, and accused Reynald Lim, Benhur Luy was transferred to the next room, Unit 2501, where he was guarded by Nap Sibayan and was told by accused Reynald Lim not to leave the room, once again, upon instructions of appellant. Soon after, appellant reappeared and hit him tchind the left ear and said “hayop ka, hindi ka na nakakalabas.” Accused Reynald Lim re-entered the room and tit Benhur Luy behind the left ear too. He then uttered “hayop Brie for the Appellant, p, 98, BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE, 36 iy \ Pp. vs. Napoles - CA-GR CR HC No. 07777BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 37 Hy Pp. vs. Napoles, CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 x ka, traydor ka. Alam mo Benhur, ako convicted criminal na ako, wala ng saysay and buhay ko, papatayin kita para lang sa ate ko.” Before leaving, accused Reynald Lim instructed Nap Sibayan “bantayan mo si Benhur, wag mong palabasin sabi ni ate.”34 As Benhur Luy testified: Q: And since when have you been employed in this company? A: Since September 2002 until I was detained on December 19. XxX XxX XXX Q: Can you tell this Honorable Court, why did Ms. Napoles grab this cellular phone from you? A: She grabbed_my cellphone and said, she will check if the number is the same Q: And what happened after she checked that your cellular phone? A: Twent near Ms. Janet Napoles and alll of a sudden after comparison, this Mark suddenly texted.3° Xxx XxX xxx Q: What did you tell Ms. Napoles when you were trying to get your cellular phone? I told madam, I wanted my phone back and then she told me that I have communication with Flor.27 XXX Rxx XXX Q: And what did Ms. Napoles do at that time? A: While she was continuously reading the messages and all of a sudden she shouted, Q: What did she say, Mr. witness? A; Sinabi_niya, “putang-ina mo Benhur’, sabi ang ganon 2013 (morning hearing), pp. 26-90. STS.N, October 25, 2013 (inorning hearing), p. 10.BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE, Pp. vs. Napoles a @ A Q Q@ A Q: Q Q: CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 What else? Sinabi niya “walang hiya ka, [kaw pa ang kamag-anak ko, ikaw pa ang nagtatraydor sa_akin. Kaya pala _nababawasan_anq PPAF ko dahil sa_mga Senador_at_saka mga Chief of Staff mga hidden transaction kayo", sabi niyang ganon. What did you do at that time Mr. witness when Ms. Napoles shouted at you these statements that you have just given? I was explaining to her but she was shouting to me, “walang hiya ka’.38 XXX Xxx XXX What did Bong do? Bong took my cellphone, he left. Ms. Napoles stood up and shouted, “ikutong na yan, ikulong na yan”, While she was leaving the office and she was dictating the people, “ikulong na yan, ikulong na yan, putang-ina niya, ikulong na yan” What did you do at that time Mr. witness when Ms. Napoles was shouting these words, “ikulong na yan, ikulong na yan”? Iwas doing nothing but I was in extreme fear Why were you afraid, Mr. witness? Kasi alam ko yung kakayahan na pwedeng gawin ni Ms. Janet Napoles.*° Xxx xox XxX And what did you do whert you were left behind in that room? When | was about to leave that room, there is this man Paquito Dimso, who was there. What happened when you went out of that room? He told me not to leave, I was instructed by madam not to let you leave.“ XXX XXX XXX ld,, pp. 30-31; underscoring supplied. °Id., pp. 33-34; underscoring supplied °Id,, p. 37; underscoring supplied,BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 i What happened after you were brought to the other unit, Mr. witness? A: I was brought by these three (3) men to unit 2501 XxX xxx tn Q: What happened Mr. witness after you were brought to that unit at 2501? A: Lwas detained at the second room of Lester Gastala."! XxX xXx Xxx Q: What happened after you were brought to that room, Mr. witness? ; Twas asked by Jojo to sit on one of the chairs there, | was instructed just to stay there and not to go out. Q: And where did Jojo go after that? A: He instructed Nap Sibuvan to watch over me_and not to let_me leave upon the instruction of his ate Janet.?? Xxx Xxx XXX Q: And what happened after that? A: After thirty (30) minutes, Ms. Janet Napoles entered the room: Q: Who was with Ms. Janet Napoles at that time when she entered the room? A: Siya lang po. Q: And what did she do at that time, Mr. witness A: She hit me behind my left ear, XXX xXx XXX Q: What, if any, happened after you told her about this? A: Sabi nya, “hayop ka, hindi ka na makakalabas”, sabi nyang ganon.** “ld, p. 42; underscoring supplied. “i, p. 43; underscoring supplied. Sid, p44BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE, Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 = Indeed, the subsequent events which transpired after appellant uttered, “Ikulong na yan!” and “hayop ka, hindi ka I, Makakalabas” sufficiently establish that she had ordered the continued detention of Benhur Luy. Definitely, those tterances do not refer to a possible court case’ which éppellant contemplates to file against Benhur Luy, as what j She alleges. In the first place, even after the lapse of three months, there never was a case filed by appellant against Eenhur Luy, despite the fa belongings such as cellpho: transactions and bank dep: ct that she had learned of all his osits after confiscating his personal mes and laptops. Moreover, Benhur which is owned by knowledge of wh of Benhur Luy, Balay San Reynald Lim Luy’s detention at Bal appellant, indicates that sh at was happening. In fact, from the testimony it is clear that his alleged spiritual retreat at Jose was directed by appellant and accused lay San Jose, had personal Furthermore, the participation of his brother, accused Rynald Lim, who is a subordinate of appellant, and the presence of her security personnel, not only in Discovery Suites but also in Balay San Jose only bolsters the fact thar || 8 appellant who really orchestrated Luy's detention. Corollarily, appellant had all the opportunity to order the lease of Benhur Luy, but she did not. She even ignored the pleas of Benhur Luy’s family to release him. Significantly, the motive for Benhur Luy’s illegal detention was to prevent him from divulging information on the illegal deals and transactions made by appellant’s Corsorations and foundations. intimated to appellant th. when he was asked to wri Surely, Benhur Luy had at he knew of all her illegal dealings te a letter of apology to appellant: Tapos sabi ko po, ginagawa sa akin, dami kong alam tu ‘madam bakit mo ito hindi mo ba alam, ang ngkol sa inyo, Ang dami kong alam tungkol sa mga transaction sa episina. Kung mapapansin mo madam, sa lahat ng empleyado mo, ako ‘yung hindi nagka-cash advance, ako yung palaging pumapasok sa opisina, sinusunod lahat ng mga instructions mo, ~“WC Tot tesa ras 41 )Qh Pp. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC x Fae twa Ko lahat ng inuutos mo na kahit na labag sa kalooban ko,¥4 Truly, the evidence convincingly Shows that Benhur Luy Wes being detained against his will from December 19, 2012 to March 22, 2013 for the purpose of keeping him from divuiging appellant's illegal deals and ‘Transactions, and that appellant had not just knowledge of the crime, but she was the one who orchestrated it, As the trial court found: As mentioned, the prosecution was able to establish that Benhur was illegally detained from December 19, 2012 to March 22, 2013, Janet ordered the detention of Benhur from {pion that he was defrauding her sf her collections from the allocated PDAP of ocr tain legislators. Without / hesitation and getting orders from Janet, Jojo held Benhur a saptive against his will which lasted for three (3) months, ‘The detention of Benhur deprived haw of his liberty While Benhur was under detention, Janet had all the phportunity to order Jojo and her security personnel to release him but did not, Instead, she opted not to be visible and in fact disappeared from the scene after the December 19, 2012 incident. She cannot feign ignorance of the whereabouts and actual condition of Benhur because the places where he was brought and detained belong to her, Ohe also ignored the pleas of Benhin family to release him, Clearly, Janet had ample opportunity to order the release of Benhur if she wished to but she neve. did. She did not make any effort to perform an act to detach herself from the crimp t8ey to commit the crime that would exempt her from the on lability. Clearly, she willingly agreed to be part of the conspiracy with her ‘brother Jojo. Her inaction can be Construed as assent to their evil deede to PRAYER WHEREFORE, _ premises considered, it is mp ecttully prayed that the Decision dated April 14, 2015 and the Order dated June 15, 2015 in Criminal Case No. 13-1999 be AFFIRMED in toto. Makati City for City of Manila, August 8, 2016. SiS supplied. “Id, p. 53; emph “Decision, 'p, 25. | BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE. 42 Nal | Pe. vs. Napoles CA-GR CR HC No. 07777 fe JOSE C. CALIDA Solicitor General Roll No. 24852 IBP No. 1019162, 01/07/16, Makati City MCLE Compliance No. IV-0018798, 04/25/13 AA € br ~“RAYMUND I. RIGODON Assistant Solicitor General Roll No. 39730 IBP Lifetime Member No. 013395, 02/ oa MCLE Compliance No. V-001 1790, 11/10/15 : | by Ae State Solicitor Roll No. 51305 IBP Lifetime Member No. 09754 MCLE Compliance No. V-0011814, 11/10/15 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City Tel. Nos. 8179879/9881629 EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court) The foregoing Brief for the Appellee is being filed and served by Stered mail, personal filing not being practicable due to lack of material time ile personal service is impracticable fecause of lack of personnel wet basal A. ALBAR | | State Solicitor “py furnished: 1 'Y. MARITONIE RENEE D, RESURRECCION , JESUS VICENTE B. CAPELLAN punse! For Accused-Appellant Janet Lim Napoles $Floo:, FNDI Building 785-4 E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue ay. Pinagkaisahan, Quezon City UMAR /ect/OSG Docket No, 13-021700. aMs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES h AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE (Revised as of April 1992) i OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL , picress at 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village Makati City, after being sworn to depose and say: 08/08/2016 . | caused to be served a copy of the following pleading/paper: NATURE OF THE PLEADING Appellee's Brief No_*CA-GR.CRHCNo. ""ehitied PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES LiM-NAPOLES (accused-appellant); Reynald Lim y Luy (accused) fection 3,4,5 and 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as follows: ‘Sfevice Te: () By depositing a copy to the party or his/her attorney on as shown on p () By leaving a copy in his/her clerk or with a person having charge thereof on as shown on p () By delivering a copy to the Court/Tribunal Office on ‘as shown on p () By depositing copy on in the Post Office at \__ as evidenced by Registry Receipt(s) No.(s) hereto attached and indicated after the name (s) of the addresse(s), and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after (10) days if undelivered an, Quezon City, , Philippines ve ww Y if? fucro Manila, Phillippines & BED AND SWORN to before me this nb t Makati s,Affiant exhibiting to me his TT 13-021709-0030 Solicitor, Officer Administering the Oath Office of the Solicitor General